On the other hand there are peoples among whom the purchase-sum, or a part of it, is given to the bride either by her father or by the bridegroom himself. But, as this may be an indirect way of compensating the bridegroom for the price he has paid, it is in many cases almost impossible to distinguish between this custom and the one last mentioned. It is equally hard to distinguish between the cases in which the bride receives a part of the price from her father, and those in which she receives a gift from the bridegroom directly. But perhaps the greatest difficulty of all is to make out whether the presents obtained from the bridegroom formed originally a part of the bride-price or were only a means of gaining her own consent. Among the Eskimo, the lover presents clothes to the lady, who puts them on, and is thenceforth his wife.[2479] Among the Dacotahs, men ask for consent to marriage by sending the price of the girl, and in addition often give presents to the object of their esteem.[2480] Speaking of the South American Guanas, Azary says, “Toutes les cérémonies du mariage se réduisent à un petit présent que le mari fait à sa prétendue.”[2481] Again, among the Javanese,[2482] Kalmucks,[2483] and Ahl el Shemál, a Bedouin tribe of Syria,[2484] the money or articles which the father receives for his daughter are generally looked upon as a settlement or provision for the wife; and among the Pelew Islanders,[2485] Mishmis,[2486] Bashkirs,[2487] Votyaks,[2488] &c.,[2489] she receives a larger or smaller part of the bride-price.
From marriage by purchase we have thus reached the practice of dower, which is apparently the very reverse of it. But, as we have seen, the marriage portion derives its origin partly from the purchase of wives. Where, as among the Marea,[2490] the endowment becomes the exclusive property of the husband, it is, no doubt, intended to be a compensation for the bride-price; whilst, among other peoples, money or goods for which the man has bought his wife are handed over to her by the father as a marriage portion which, in a certain way, belongs to her. Yet, as we shall see directly, the dowry does not in every case spring from a previous purchase.
The marriage portion serves different ends, often indissolubly mixed up together. It may have the meaning of a return gift. It may imply that the wife as well as the husband is expected to contribute to the expenses of the joint household. It is also very often intended to be a settlement for the wife in case the marriage be dissolved through the husband’s death or otherwise. But as, in such instances, the husband generally has the usufruct of the portion, as long as the union lasts, it is in many cases impossible to discern whether the original meaning was that of a return gift to the man or of a settlement for the woman.
We read in the ‘Laws of Manu,’ “What was given before the nuptial fire, what was given on the bridal procession, what was given in token of love, and what was received from her brother, mother, or father, that is called the sixfold property of a woman. Such property, as well as a gift subsequent and what was given to her by her affectionate husband, shall go to her offspring, even if she dies in the lifetime of her husband.”[2491] The Hindu law recognizes the dominion of a married woman over this property (her “strîdhan”),[2492] but the husband has nevertheless power to use and consume it in case of distress.[2493] At Athens, the administration of the dower certainly belonged to the husband, who might defray with it the expenses of the marriage, and even had a right to alienate the movable objects forming a part of the marriage portion.[2494] But it did not become his property. If the marriage tie was dissolved through divorce or through the husband’s death, the dower had to be restored to the woman, who, as a security for this restitution, had a mortgage, consisting generally of a piece of real property;[2495] or if, in case of divorce, the husband did not restore the dower, he paid, whilst it was retained, nine oboli every month as interest.[2496] The Roman dos was intended to be the wife’s contribution towards the expenses of the marriage state.[2497] It became the husband’s property, as if it were a patrimony which he had a right not only to administer, but even to dispose of independently of the will of his wife.[2498] This confusion of the dower with the patrimony was tolerable as long as marriage was contracted for life, but became very disastrous during the period when divorces were frequent. At the end of the Republican era, therefore, the husband’s right to dispose of his wife’s marriage portion was limited. It had to be restored in case of divorce, as also in case of the marriage being dissolved through the husband’s death. The Lex Julia de adulteriis prevented him from alienating dotal land without the wife’s consent, or mortgaging it even with her consent; and the legislation of Justinian prevented alienation with the wife’s consent, and declared the law on the subject applicable to provincial land.[2499] The general tradition of the Roman dos was carried on by the Church, the practical object being to secure for the wife a provision of which the husband could not wantonly deprive her, and which would remain to her after his death.[2500] The Roman dotal right, more or less modified in the laws of the different countries, underlies modern European legislation; the husband generally administers and has the use of his wife’s dotation, but it remains her property.[2501]
Among the Germans of early times, the bride-price which was handed over to the woman as her marriage portion became her exclusive property, of which the husband could not dispose.[2502] Besides this dos, she received from her parents an endowment, as a sort of compensation for her inheritance, or as an advance on it. This also was her private property, at least so far that it went to her if the marriage was dissolved.[2503] Among the Slavs, the dower seems originally to have been given to the wife as a security in the event of her needing independent support; and, among the Poles and Bohemians, the husband could make no use of it, unless he left his own goods as a deposit.[2504] In Wales, a woman received not only a part of the bride-price, “cowyll,” but also a marriage portion from her father, called “agweddi” (representing the “tincur” of the Irish), which, during cohabitation, belonged to husband and wife jointly. In case they separated before the end of seven years, the wife was to receive this portion back; and in any case, even if she left her husband for no reason before the seventh year, she had her “cowyll.” If the separation took place after this period, the property which the wife brought with her was divided.[2505]
The Hebrews, in early times, generally gave daughters as a dowry only a part of the “mohar.” Afterwards a woman who married was endowed with a portion called “nedunia,” of which the husband had the usufruct as long as the marriage lasted.[2506] The Mohammedans, as a rule, settle very large dowers on their wives; and it is generally stipulated that two-thirds of the dowry shall be paid immediately before the marriage contract is made, whilst the remaining third is held in reserve, to be paid to the wife in case of her being divorced against her own consent, or in case of the husband’s death.[2507] And whatever property the wife receives from her parents or any other person on the occasion of her marriage, or otherwise, is entirely at her own disposal, and not subject to any claim of her husband or his creditors.[2508] Speaking of newly-married people among the Mexicans, Acosta says, “When they went to house they made an inventory of all the man and wife brought together, of provisions for the house, of land, of iewells and ornaments, which inventories every father kept, for if it chanced they made any devorce (as it was common amongest them when they agree not), they divided their goods according to the portion that every one brought.”[2509]
Among races at a lower stage of civilization[2510] the dowry commonly subserves a similar end—that is, in case of separation or divorce, the wife gets back her marriage portion, though the husband, as it seems in most cases, has the usufruct of it as long as marriage lasts. But, in savage life, the dowry plays no important part. Often nothing of the kind exists,[2511] and, where it does, the portion generally consists of some food, clothes, household goods, or other trifles,[2512] and occasionally of cattle.[2513] Ultimately, as we have seen, the dowry is due to a feeling of respect and sympathy for the weaker sex, which, on the whole, is characteristic of a higher civilization.[2514] And, as we have spoken of a stage of marriage by capture and another stage of marriage by purchase, we may now speak of a third, where fathers are bound by law or custom to portion their daughters.
Thus the Hebrews[2515] and Mahommedans[2516] consider it a religious duty for a man to give a dower to his daughter. In Greece the dowry came to be thought almost necessary to make the distinction between a wife and a concubine παλλακή;[2517] and Isaeus says that no decent man would give his legitimate daughter less than a tenth of his property.[2518] Indeed, so great were the dowers given that, in the time of Aristotle, nearly two-fifths of the whole territory of Sparta were supposed to belong to women.[2519] In Rome, even more than in Greece, the marriage portion became a mark of distinction for a legitimate wife.[2520] It was the duty of the wife to provide her husband with dos, and a woman herself had a legal claim to be provided with a dower by her father or other paternal ascendants.[2521] And, though later on, Justinian in several of his constitutions declares that dos is obligatory for persons of high rank only,[2522] the old custom did not fall into desuetude.[2523] The Prussian ‘Landrecht’ still prescribes that the father, or eventually the mother, shall arrange about the wedding and fit up the house of the newly-married couple.[2524] According to the ‘Code Napoléon,’ on the other hand, parents are not bound to give a dower to their daughters,[2525] and the same principle is generally adopted by modern legislation. Yet there is still a strong feeling, especially in the so-called Latin countries, in favour of dotation. This feeling, as Sir Henry Maine remarks, is the principal source of those habits of saving and hoarding, which characterize the French people, and is probably descended, by a long chain of succession, from the obligatory provisions of the marriage law of the Emperor Augustus.[2526]
In this course of development, the marriage portion has often become something quite different from what it was originally. It has in many cases become a purchase-sum by means of which a father buys a husband for his daughter, as formerly a man bought a wife from her father. Euripides, transferring to the heroic age the practice of his own time, makes Medea complain that her sex had to purchase husbands with great sums of money.[2527] “Pars minima est ipsa puella sui,” the Latin poet sings. And, in our days, a woman without a marriage portion, unless she has some great natural attractions, runs the risk of being a spinster for ever. This state of things naturally grows up in a society where monogamy is prescribed by law, where the adult women outnumber the adult men, where many men never marry, and where married women too often lead an indolent life.